SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122215)12/27/2003 12:51:09 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Nadine's references to a direct Iraqi threat are many and varied -- most recently she has been referring to "asymetric threats" in the form of Iraqi attacks on American cities using dirty bombs. BTW, your increasingly flexible use of the distinction between direct and indirect is rendering its meaning vacuous. Blowing up a US city by whatever means is not an indirect threat -- it is a threat, period. The only meaningful use of the word "indirect" in this context was your original usage, meaning an attack on Saudi Arabia (our dear friends), or Israel (the only country in the world that is "never wrong").



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122215)12/27/2003 2:24:07 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Your "saying so" doesn't make it true.. Please show
references and documentable links to such language..."

If you haven't learned by now, for all too many, facts &
accuracy play no part in their reality. Like "imminent
threat", all that needs to be done is for someone to say
it, regardless of its veracity, & it is so...... as long
as it supports their preconceived bias on the subject.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News